Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air

[TechMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/08/18/california-weighing-bird-deaths-from-concentrated-solar-plants-as-it-considers/

Solar plant that has more than 300,000 mirrors (each the size of a garage door) that reflect solar rays onto 3 boiler towers.  This plant is killing birds that fly through the plant's concentrated sun rays.  The workers at the plant have nicknamed the birds "streamers" for the smoke plume that comes from the birds that ignite in midair.

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one "streamer" every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version.

The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

One of the backers of this plant is Google. According to the article that pilots flying in and out of Las Vegas and Los Angeles are dazzled by the reflected light from the mirros.

The backers now want to build a larger plant that is on a flight path for birds between the Colorado River and the Salton Sea (CA's largest lake.)

[birdman]

When it comes to powering the country's grids, "diversity of technology ... is critical," Conroy said. "Nobody should be arguing let's be all coal, all solar," all wind, or all nuclear. "And every one of those technologies has a long list of pros and cons.

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

[vaskidmark]

Why is this news today?  The fact that birds have been disoriented by solar collector mirrors (and getting flash fried) has been known for quite a while.

stay safe.







darned typo

[onions!]

There's a KFC joke in there somewhere.

[lupinus]

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

I'll concede and allow for some coal plants as well.

[Fly320s]

One of the backers of this plant is Google. According to the article that pilots flying in and out of Las Vegas and Los Angeles are dazzled by the reflected light from the mirros.

No, not at all. I've flown over it many times and it does not dazzle me or anyone else. I've looked directly at the mirrors without any adverse effects.

The mirrors have a pretty short focal length.  When the reflected sunlight misses the tower, the beam spreads rapidly enough that it doesn't affect us at higher altitudes.  I have a few photos that I will upload to show what it looks like.

[onions!]

No, not at all. I've flown over it many times and it does not dazzle me or anyone else. I've looked directly at the mirrors without any adverse effects.

The mirrors have a pretty short focal length.  When the reflected sunlight misses the tower, the beam spreads rapidly enough that it doesn't affect us at higher altitudes.  I have a few photos that I will upload to show what it looks like.

Do you have any of Area 51 or Groom Lake that you could share?

[roo_ster]

There's a KFC joke in there somewhere.

Yeah you only rent the power produced at that plant.

[Ben]

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

Hey Don Quixote, just give up and come join us at INTJ Galt's Gulch, because "people able to do math" are a dying breed. :)

[Boomhauer]

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

Butbutbut TEH FEELZ! CHERNOBYL! CHINA SYNDROME! MMMMEEEELLLLTTTTTDDDDOOOWWWWNNNN!

[Fly320s]

Do you have any of Area 51 or Groom Lake that you could share?

Sure, but they are boring. Lots of sand.

BTW, I can't find those other photos.

[Tallpine]

Sure, but they are boring. Lots of sand.

All those underground bunkers, you know 

[AmbulanceDriver]

There's a KFC joke in there somewhere.

"Regular or Extra Crispy?"

[Firethorn]

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

But then they're forgetting variables.  I want to keep the hydro-electric dams going, for one thing.  A certain amount of wind and solar is also good.  Solar panels hooked up to run AC systems for the daytime load, for example.

They're going to have to enact the same sort of anti-bird measures they have around major airports.

[Tallpine]

They're going to have to enact the same sort of anti-bird measures they have around major airports.

Sounds like this solar plant would be a good anti-bird measure to have around an airport 

[birdman]

But then they're forgetting variables.  I want to keep the hydro-electric dams going, for one thing.  A certain amount of wind and solar is also good.  Solar panels hooked up to run AC systems for the daytime load, for example.

They're going to have to enact the same sort of anti-bird measures they have around major airports.

No, they aren't.
Wind, solar, dams, all take up more (a lot more) space than an equivalent amount of nuclear power.
I'm for nuclear because I want as little land possible covered with our crap.
We have one earth, why cover it with excess stuff that costs more?

Hey Don Quixote, just give up and come join us at INTJ Galt's Gulch, because "people able to do math" are a dying breed. :)

I'll join after I have a few hundred million lying around.

[Firethorn]

No, they aren't.

Dams do a lot more than just provide power; they also prevent flooding for the most part.

As for solar taking up more space - it's easy to dual purpose, just put them on roofs, use them as car ports/shades, etc... 

As a bonus, since most installs provide a touch more insulation by preventing the sun from hitting the roof directly it helps lower AC requirements as well as provide electricity. Now if only the panels and other required stuff didn't cost so much...  Though I'll note that they have AC's today designed to utilize the power from solar panels directly, without a costly and not 100% efficient inverter.  Only sacrifice is that if the sun isn't out it doesn't run unless you have batteries.  It still covers a lot of territory where you don't typically need AC at night anyways.

I'm for nuclear because I want as little land possible covered with our crap.
We have one earth, why cover it with excess stuff that costs more?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for nuclear as well, it's just that as a safety thing I don't want 100% nuclear.  Something like 50% nuclear, 20% solar, 15% hydro, 10% wind, and 5% 'other' would work nicely.

[Northwoods]

Screw wind power.  Nukular plus gas/coal with dams where also needed for flood control.  Multiple sources are good for a variety of reasons.  But, anything else is boondoggle territory.

[Ron]

Wind farms are a blight on the landscape IMHO.

If we want a stable reliable grid for the future we need to start burying our power lines and ramping up construction of new nuclear power plants. All other sources of power are just gravy then.

[erictank]

Um.  Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear.  Those people can be described as "able to do math"

Well, technically, we ought to have some capacity in plants better suited for peak loading, while nuclear carries the baseload. Current NRC-approved nuke plants aren't great with the big swings in peak loading you commonly see.

But there's no reason we shouldn't have nukes scattered all over this country handling baseload, and different sorts of peaking plants where the different types make sense. Hell, the only way solar's going to get better is if we keep working on it. Solar in sunny places, hydro in places with suitable rivers and reservoirs (most of which, in the US, already have dams in place, IIRC), wind in windy places, clean gas and coal where we must have more power. I don't see a huge reason to cut ANYTHING out, out of hand. Wind and solar aren't going to be carrying baseload for decades to centuries, if ever (solar's only going to make it if we get to space and use powersats for everything up there, IMO; wind? Probably never), but in places where it makes sense to use it as a supplement? Why not? There might be REASONS why the owner might want a windmill generator onsite, or to put solar panels on the roof. Or a farm of either, or both - if it makes sense to him.

Concur with burying power lines, and getting new nuke plants underway, though. And working hard on making fusion work!

[AJ Dual]

Haven't found any videos of the bird meteors yet. 

[TommyGunn]

Haven't found any videos of the bird meteors yet. 

So it's a.....

[MechAg94]

Wind power is unreliable and only cost effective with big subsidies.  You really don't want that as a significant % of your power supply.  To me, it is a niche supply only.

[HankB]

My favorite for future energy is fusion power, which is only 30 years away . . . as it has been since the 1960s.  

[KD5NRH]

As for solar taking up more space - it's easy to dual purpose, just put them on roofs, use them as car ports/shades, etc...

Yup.  One of our biggest competitive advantages is that, where there are good solar incentives, we can build a solar carport with a final price that's often equal to a regular carport.  Competitors using prebuilt ground mount racking systems are 20-75% higher.